Proposed 3 no. Houses (4 bed).

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed 3 no houses (4 bed).

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Avery of Lyonshall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr K Hern, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had discussed the proposal with the local community and there was considerable local support for it. 

·        He contrasted the development with the large scale developments that had been approved in other villages without local support.  The developer could, for example, have submitted an application for some 40 standard houses but had chosen not to do so.

·        The proposed houses were large.  However, he observed that in May 2014 the Committee had approved a single very large dwelling at Eardisland in what were far less favourable planning circumstances.

·        He questioned the criticism in the report of the proposed design and considered the development was in keeping with the village.

·        The development was sustainable.

·        He outlined a number of paragraphs within the National Planning Policy Framework and a range of policies that could be advanced in support of the application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The applicant was commended on the consultation undertaken with the local community. 

·        The development commanded local support including that of the Parish Council and was a good example of a village deciding how it should grow and survive.

·        The developer had offered to provide community benefits.  The hope was expressed that these might be increased given the profit the Scheme would generate.

·        The Committee had granted permission for many developments adjoining a settlement boundary.

·        The development was sustainable.

·        Development on the edge of a settlement could have less impact on the amenity of existing residents than infill development.

·        The hope was expressed that the grassed area between the village and the development could be retained.

·        The area was not a conservation area.  Quality of design was a subjective matter.   It was questioned whether the design was inappropriate, and failed to reflect the surrounding local built character and environment as the report suggested.  The Development Manager commented on the reasoning behind his view expressed in the report.

·        It was noted that a development of 10 or more houses would have necessitated a S106 agreement guaranteeing community benefit.

·        It was suggested that a better visibility splay to the west of the access was required.

·        Some Members considered that the development was too far removed from the heart of the village.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He commented that the development was less than 500m from the pub.  Affordable housing had already been provided within the village.  He reiterated that the development was sustainable and preferable to a standard, larger development for which there was scope for an application to be made.

A motion that the application should be refused on the grounds that the development was too remote from the village was lost.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary after consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member on the grounds that the development was sustainable.